From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andrea Corallo Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Declaring Lisp function types Date: Thu, 02 May 2024 06:16:43 -0400 Message-ID: References: <8634sdjgoj.fsf@gnu.org> <86mspaq4ro.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="2184"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org, stefankangas@gmail.com, adam@alphapapa.net, arthur.miller@live.com To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu May 02 12:17:08 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1s2TUw-0000F8-UQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 02 May 2024 12:17:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1s2TUg-0000Ts-1C; Thu, 02 May 2024 06:16:50 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1s2TUe-0000T8-MQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 May 2024 06:16:48 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1s2TUe-0004SS-7n; Thu, 02 May 2024 06:16:48 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:To: From; bh=Ldc7HUN/LEsBrQ7YIu/uoiVQAB2Qx1Y9mYFZr8a+k/E=; b=Lcjw96h1G74Uo15b1MeB kexjFqNdz/TSMCfbsMs1uVRhnIR6UXYlSp56y86iwVdvhLcW7eC/PTWtebnOPU342fY8kMbtfKA+W w9u5HpBTETEiS9c+NhyebBFm9/wotgN7XA6NmCDMQpzGS7vHelWfjNpeL+I0uUm3Woupr9uxXxyyi oxZg7DFqLACbouJ0FTrfvlcvkDUwHGcvJuoVpMAzomP/o34p3Vibug830O7cb8Wlp3XiBaifR38fg zFz/WDy3k+u/pc3ikW7uaK/X2R93mfVDGtuLEDqzlsxNxfAh4oKp2U7sfPlY/WQIF4uJ9/HC73Hp/ HrWiapZep/CSkA==; Original-Received: from acorallo by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1s2TUZ-0001Cl-E8; Thu, 02 May 2024 06:16:47 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Wed, 01 May 2024 17:06:47 -0400") X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:318558 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >> Thanks, I think it should be more clear now. I don't think we want to >> be over specific there as what the implementation does when the >> 'promise' of the declaration is not respected might change in >> the future. > > I think we need to mention very explicitly if "segfault" is considered > a valid possible outcome or not. Done Thanks Andrea